98.4 > 99.9 (Caution: HBD)

Fine words, in the abstract. The problem is that the policies we actually see advocated by prominent HBD-proponents are so like "racism" as to be functionally indistinguishable: race conscious immigration programs, even in multiracial societies, racially-targeted law enforcement, permitting, or at least not punishing (which is the same thing) employment discrimination. If the HBD movement was about pure science and the search for knowledge, it would be one thing, but like the field of anthropology generally, it is, in practice, so heavily politicized as to be largely a political, rather than scientific movement in the first place.

Fundamentally, I don't think you can craft good policy playing to the averages, and HBD is all about the averages.

All theories begin in the abstract.

Policies that are currently unconventional and not in favor can easily be adopted; after all, we went from a time more like the one nationalists describe and now have a time of mixed-race supremacy.

Because the end result of a thought reaches some similar conclusions -- but not all! you forgot that -- to another thought, it does not make them identical. Both Nazis and Democrats want free animal sterilization to cut down on strays; ergo, Democrats are Nazis.

Sure, our science is politicized... like most other Big Issues, humanity is fucking it up. So we either suggest the solution that solves the problem, or like every other half-chimp idiot content ourselves with making political statements that we think might lure the Crowd our way.

Let me tell you something... the Crowd is a fickle customer. They won't meet you halfway. Ha ha! They will always go to the guy who (a) promises more and (b) demands less. So it's a race to the lowest common denominator, and we gain nothing by sugar-coating or making deceptive our ideas.

Furthermore, as the crisis unravels, these ideas will be adopted out of necessity. Our only suggestion is, of course, that we change before the inevitable crisis. But that's too sensible for the dumb monkeys, and the educated ones, of course.

The important issue here is the extent to which that diversity affects intelligence, which science is still inconclusive upon.

I disagree on two fronts:

(a) That's not the important issue. The important issue is preserving autonomous sub-species because it's the most sensible way of organizing human beings. Intelligence is one of many important traits.

(b) Science is pretty clear on the issue; if you don't accept that, we get into the territory that shows us "science" doesn't say a damn thing, individual scientists do, and they're susceptible to bribe and political pressures.

The important issue here is the extent to which that diversity affects intelligence, which science is still inconclusive upon.

I disagree on two fronts:

(a) That's not the important issue. The important issue is preserving autonomous sub-species because it's the most sensible way of organizing human beings. Intelligence is one of many important traits.

(b) Science is pretty clear on the issue; if you don't accept that, we get into the territory that shows us "science" doesn't say a damn thing, individual scientists do, and they're susceptible to bribe and political pressures.

What I mean to say is that intelligence is the only trait around which there is still some confusion. You don't need complex genetic research to establish that negroes are physically different to caucasians, because you can assess physical differences through sight. We already know about all the differences with regards to the other important traits possessed by human beings. Intelligence is the only one we have some difficulty measuring (not to mention defining), so it's the one I'm most curious about seeing genetic research upon. And while science would, hypothetically, be clear upon the issue if humans knew enough about it, we don't. Scientists currently have no way of establishing if person a) is more "intelligent" than person b).

There are also some fallacies of mediocrity in the comments section of the April 6th nihilism blog entry. Worse, are Mennonites or lepers required to have a distinct race gene in order to live apart from the rest of us? By any definition, antiseparatism or opposition to concordant pan-secessionism is the farthest thing from liberal. Thusly, totalitarian humanism.

It's about class envy, and a horde of people who don't really have their shit together getting mad at Donald Trump for figuring out how to be a billionaire. (They never think to blame the idiots who buy the products that make people into overnight billionaires; just blame the billionaire, like a totem or talisman).

Most of all, it's about being better than the people around you, so that you have a place in your friend group which you deserve and is important.

Fuck, it would be easier just to have a feudal/journeyman/caste system, but that scares your average honkey. They'd rather be a nameless drone who might strike it rich someday, by chance.

People don't like to admit that we are not gods. Fuck, we're monkeys. Our brains may have bits of heaven in them, but we're here in meaty form.

Each group evolved differently. You can't compare the Norse or North Asians to any other group. They're radically far ahead.

Even within those groups, people evolved differently. If your ancestors picked turnips, we can put you in a suit, educate you and make you rich, but your judgment is still that of a turnip-picker.

In the same way, if a rich man lies with whores, he gets Paris Hilton as a daughter.

People need to pay attention to Darwin. Evolution is ongoing. And humanity ain't so great, as it is now.

The "Aryan pride" weenies need to realize that the Aryans, whoever they were, self-destructed because they let lots of Brunns run wild with their daughters. Why? For social reasons. Now what's the result? A slow merging of genetics to an average.

The current thinking is that about 11,000 years ago, humans began the agricultural way of life in the Near East. About 5,000 years later, that culture arrived in continental Europe. Farmers and hunter-gatherers had different dietary habits, funeral rites and expressions of material culture, experts say.

To investigate the impact of the farmers, Swedish researchers examined DNA from four samples of human remains, all approximately 5,000 years old, in Sweden. Three were from a hunter-gatherer site, and one was excavated from an ancient burial site from a farming culture.

Researchers sequenced about 250 million genetic base pairs, which is between 1% and 3% of genomes of each of the four individuals, Mattias Jakobsson of Uppsala University in Uppsala, Sweden, said at a at news conference Thursday. The authors of the study compared this genetic information with that of reference materials from many different parts of Europe.

"What we find is that hunter-gatherers are most genetically similar to individuals who today live in the northern ends of Europe," Jakobsson said at the news conference. Specifically, people in Finland, Russia and the Orkney Islands of Scotland have genetic variants in common with the hunter-gatherers these researchers studied.

By contrast, today's residents of Southern Europe, such as Italians and Cypriots, are more genetically similar to the ancient farmers. Even in Sweden today, people who live in the north are closer to the hunter-gatherers' genetic signature than people who live in the south, who have a bit more in common with the ancient farmers.

Dylar would have us believe the real proportion of criminal convicts would fairly mirror the actual proportion of demographics. But it doesn't. Likewise for academic performance. Note that this extreme race inequality across the board also occurs within liberal left democracies where as a matter of public policy race doesn't matter. Are multiculturalists engaging in the psychological defense called denial?

Dylar would have us believe the real proportion of criminal convicts would fairly mirror the actual proportion of demographics. But it doesn't. Likewise for academic performance. Note that this extreme race inequality across the board also occurs within liberal left democracies where as a matter of public policy race doesn't matter. Are multiculturalists engaging in the psychological defense called denial?

Dylar would have you "believe" nothing. Dylar only asks that people own up to the actual implications and consequences of the ideas they promote. The HBD movement is racism by another name. You can make an argument for the utility or even the justice of racism, but the pretense that HBD somehow isn't a racist stance is just that: pretense. Convictions mean nothing if you don't even have the courage to call them by name. Man up. OWN it.

The last decade has witnessed important advances in our understanding of the genetics of pigmentation in European populations, but very little is known about the genes involved in skin pigmentation variation in East Asian populations. Here, we present the results of a study evaluating the association of 10 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) located within 5 pigmentation candidate genes (OCA2, DCT, ADAM17, ADAMTS20, and TYRP1) with skin pigmentation measured quantitatively in a sample of individuals of East Asian ancestry living in Canada. We show that the non-synonymous polymorphism rs1800414 (His615Arg) located within the OCA2 gene is significantly associated with skin pigmentation in this sample. We replicated this result in an independent sample of Chinese individuals of Han ancestry. This polymorphism is characterized by a derived allele that is present at a high frequency in East Asian populations, but is absent in other population groups. In both samples, individuals with the derived G allele, which codes for the amino acid arginine, show lower melanin levels than those with the ancestral A allele, which codes for the amino acid histidine. An analysis of this non-synonymous polymorphism using several programs to predict potential functional effects provides additional support for the role of this SNP in skin pigmentation variation in East Asian populations. Our results are consistent with previous research indicating that evolution to lightly-pigmented skin occurred, at least in part, independently in Europe and East Asia.